Scottish nationalists set for record majority, boosting independence push

[RuamRudy]

17 minutes ago, sidgy said:

No Problem. My apologies also, I have reread and seen you are referring to total production since reserves were first found, The 60% i refer to was over the last few years

Incidentally, Are you also not including all the other sites in the UK outside of Scotland,  eg Morecombe Bay, Wytch farm, etc

 

I am not so sure about Morecambe Bay production but I had a mate who worked at Wytch Farm for BP; we used to laugh that my itty bitty platform put more oil down the drain than Wytch Farm produced, but you are right - the figures are UK wide. 

 

But the fundamental point is that the UK has very little to show for its oil production no matter from where it came. 

 

The Norwegian government, on the other hand, has $1 trillion banked and working for the people. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway?wprov=sfla1

[sharksy]

On 2/6/2021 at 3:10 AM, RuamRudy said:

 

Certainly it is a big ask because much would be hypothetical and the 'hasn't gone well' aspect is clearly subjective, especially over 300 years.

 

A list of historic grievances is pointless but within my lifetime we have seen the decimation of heavy industry and the resulting, long lasting effects on communities all over Scotland as they were abandoned by the government, all to suit the ideological belief of a party that my country has rejected at every single election since before the vast majority of us were born. 

 

You might argue that the same was felt and continues to be felt in Northern England and in Wales, and I am not disputing that, but the fact remains that it was your country which enabled Thatcher; in no election since 1955 have Scottish votes influenced the result of a General Election. Every GE since that time has resulted in electing the party that England wants. 

 

I moved to Aberdeen in the late 80s to go to college. At the height of the oil boom, I can still recall being surprised to see the relative poverty of pockets of the city. I can still remember, around 2000, the council getting excited because they had finally converted their last council accommodation to have an indoor toilet.

 

Meanwhile Norway, a country very similar to Scotland in terms of population, geography and number of barrels of oil extracted from the North Sea, has one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world. Our oil boon was taken by a government we never voted for and used to facilitate tax cuts for the wealthy as they have racked up debt of trillions of pounds which they will saddle us with.  

 

 The stagnation that came after Thatcher destroyed our industrial base was as criminal as the destruction itself - our record on violence, drink and drug abuse is a shocking legacy of the years of neglect by successive Westminster governments.

 

And now, Brexit thrust upon an unwilling country - so many things we could have avoided were we free to choose our own path rather than being forced to follow the lead from our neighbour. 

I'm pleased you put some effort in your response.

 

You mention the decimation of heavy industries.

Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution_in_Scotland the Union seems to have brought massive benefits to Scotland.

 

 

England is the only country that doesn't have a nationalistic party, Tories, Labour, LibDems are UK parties.

If the UK was ran by, hypothetically, English National Party, and they got most of the votes, as does the Tories, Labour - then I would understand much of your grieviances.

 

As part of the Union, is it really Scotlands Oil?  It's UK's oil.  Fair enough, after independence, then it would be Scotland's / Shetlands / Orkneys oil.  It was UKs oil until the SNP arrived to stir things up.

The Barnet Formula is a good equilizer.

 

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Scotland's_oil#:~:text="It's Scotland's oil" was a,economic case for Scottish independence.

"The BBC economist Evan Davis however reported prior to the 2007 Scottish Parliament election that the Barnett formula already allows Scotland to sustain higher levels of per capita public spending relative to the rest of the UK, which is approximately equivalent to its disproportionately high annual contribution of tax revenues to the central UK Treasury from Oil production.^[14] However Scotland's per capita spending growth, relative to the rest of the UK, has in recent years, been nominally reduced by the operation of the Barnett formula, in order to bring public spending levels into line with the UK average, in a phenomenon that had been dubbed the "Barnett Squeeze"."

 

It seems that 300 years ago, the UK "rescued" Scotland.

And again, when RBS Bank hit problems, the UK "rescued" Scotland with a bailout.  Scotland would be f***** if this had happened under independence.

 

Definately, Stronger Together.

 

 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, sharksy said:

I'm pleased you put some effort in your response.

 

You mention the decimation of heavy industries.

Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution_in_Scotland the Union seems to have brought massive benefits to Scotland.

 

 

England is the only country that doesn't have a nationalistic party, Tories, Labour, LibDems are UK parties.

If the UK was ran by, hypothetically, English National Party, and they got most of the votes, as does the Tories, Labour - then I would understand much of your grieviances.

 

As part of the Union, is it really Scotlands Oil?  It's UK's oil.  Fair enough, after independence, then it would be Scotland's / Shetlands / Orkneys oil.  It was UKs oil until the SNP arrived to stir things up.

The Barnet Formula is a good equilizer.

 

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Scotland's_oil#:~:text="It's Scotland's oil" was a,economic case for Scottish independence.

"The BBC economist Evan Davis however reported prior to the 2007 Scottish Parliament election that the Barnett formula already allows Scotland to sustain higher levels of per capita public spending relative to the rest of the UK, which is approximately equivalent to its disproportionately high annual contribution of tax revenues to the central UK Treasury from Oil production.^[14] However Scotland's per capita spending growth, relative to the rest of the UK, has in recent years, been nominally reduced by the operation of the Barnett formula, in order to bring public spending levels into line with the UK average, in a phenomenon that had been dubbed the "Barnett Squeeze"."

 

It seems that 300 years ago, the UK "rescued" Scotland.

And again, when RBS Bank hit problems, the UK "rescued" Scotland with a bailout.  Scotland would be f***** if this had happened under independence.

 

Definately, Stronger Together.

 

 

 

 

 

I fear that this may come over aggressively, but it is not my intent. However, if we were playing unionist bingo, you've got yourself a full house of 'reasons' why we can't be independent, touching all the articles of faith for the Scottish unionist - too wee, too poor and too stupid. 

 

The UK never rescued Scotland in 1707. Of course you meant England, as the UK didn't exist at that point, but even then, there was no rescue. You will see some people who actually know better but still insist on repeating this falsehood - but Scotland was not bankrupt. In fact, you should question the economic nous of anyone stating otherwise. You see, Scotland has no central bank at this time. It owed no money because it had no borrowing capacity. 

 

What it did have, however, were a few powerful people who were in personal financial difficulties. They were coerced into agreeing to the act of union (see the Alien Act to understand the coercion they faced) which saw the alignment between the parliaments of England and Scotland. 

 

Immediately, the English parliament abolished the Scottish Parliament and declared itself the supreme legislature across the UK. 

 

And that is the case up until today. As Johnson has said in the past, there is no need for a separate English parliament - it has one, Westminster. 

 

I agree that Scotland became an industrial powerhouse after the union, but to say that this would or would not have happened without the union is obviously one of those arguments unwinnable from either perspective.

 

What I can say, however, is that in 1707, while England had 5 times the population of Scotland, the latter had 4 universities to England's 2. The seeds for the Scottish enlightenment had been sown long before, meaning that when the conditions were right, Scotland was ready to seize the opportunities of the industrial revolution. But did it take the union for that move to happen, and might it have happened regardless? That's one of those questions to which we will never know the answer. 

 

I think you miss my point about the oil revenues - less about whether it belongs to Scotland or England, but more to do with how they were squandered. 

 

And the rbs? Scottish in name only - an international company, based in London and making the same rash decisions that every other bank was making under the prevailing laissez fair climate. 

[sharksy]

22 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I fear that this may come over aggressively, but it is not my intent. However, if we were playing unionist bingo, you've got yourself a full house of 'reasons' why we can't be independent, touching all the articles of faith for the Scottish unionist - too wee, too poor and too stupid. 

 

The UK never rescued Scotland in 1707. Of course you meant England, as the UK didn't exist at that point, but even then, there was no rescue. You will see some people who actually know better but still insist on repeating this falsehood - but Scotland was not bankrupt. In fact, you should question the economic nous of anyone stating otherwise. You see, Scotland has no central bank at this time. It owed no money because it had no borrowing capacity. 

 

What it did have, however, were a few powerful people who were in personal financial difficulties. They were coerced into agreeing to the act of union (see the Alien Act to understand the coercion they faced) which saw the alignment between the parliaments of England and Scotland. 

 

Immediately, the English parliament abolished the Scottish Parliament and declared itself the supreme legislature across the UK. 

 

And that is the case up until today. As Johnson has said in the past, there is no need for a separate English parliament - it has one, Westminster. 

 

I agree that Scotland became an industrial powerhouse after the union, but to say that this would or would not have happened without the union is obviously one of those arguments unwinnable from either perspective.

 

What I can say, however, is that in 1707, while England had 5 times the population of Scotland, the latter had 4 universities to England's 2. The seeds for the Scottish enlightenment had been sown long before, meaning that when the conditions were right, Scotland was ready to seize the opportunities of the industrial revolution. But did it take the union for that move to happen, and might it have happened regardless? That's one of those questions to which we will never know the answer. 

 

I think you miss my point about the oil revenues - less about whether it belongs to Scotland or England, but more to do with how they were squandered. 

 

And the rbs? Scottish in name only - an international company, based in London and making the same rash decisions that every other bank was making under the prevailing laissez fair climate. 

 

I've never come across the "Too wee, too poor, too stupid".  Sounds more like a chip on ones shoulder.

 

Fair point about the UK, it was England at the time.

 

But we don't have an English Parliament.  Whenever I tune in to PM questions, I'm estimating that half of the time taken up is from Scottish MP's asking questions, completely out of proportion.

 

And Scottish Law can trump English Law.  Just look at the recent issue of proroging Parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/11/scottish-judges-rule-boris-johnsons-prorogation-unlawful

 

There is a lot of heavy industry (eg Aircraft Carriers) that the UK government has paid for to be built in Scotland.

Do you really think this could continue after independence?

 

 

It would surely be a hard sell to say that Scotland would be where it is now, without the union.

 

"Scotland benefited, says historian G.N. Clark, gaining "freedom of trade with England and the colonies" as well as "a great expansion of markets". The agreement guaranteed the permanent status of the Presbyterian church in Scotland, and the separate system of laws and courts in Scotland. Clark argued that in exchange for the financial benefits and bribes that England bestowed, what it gained was

of inestimable value. Scotland accepted the Hanoverian succession and gave up her power of threatening England's military security and complicating her commercial relations ... The sweeping successes of the eighteenth-century wars owed much to the new unity of the two nations.^[46]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707

 

 

But was the oil revenues really squandered?  It mean't lower taxes for all in the UK, also allowing lowering the National Debt.

OK, Shetland & Norway decided to setup a fund, this is surely overrated.  Always best to pay down debts, unless interest rates are low, which has only really happened in very recent history.

 

RBS is registered in Edinburgh.  But after independence, it will, along with many other companies, no doubt, relocate to England.

Independence will be an own goal for Scotland.

Why pay higher Corporation Tax rate, when a few miles south of the big cities, there is a kinder tax regime?

[RuamRudy]

14 hours ago, sharksy said:

I've never come across the "Too wee, too poor, too stupid".  Sounds more like a chip on ones shoulder.

You literally wrote this:

On 2/7/2021 at 6:32 PM, sharksy said:

the Union seems to have brought massive benefits to Scotland.

On 2/7/2021 at 6:32 PM, sharksy said:

It seems that 300 years ago, the UK "rescued" Scotland.

On 2/7/2021 at 6:32 PM, sharksy said:

Scotland would be f***** if this had happened under independence.

 

And then you went on the ignore everything else I wrote because, I presume, it doesn't fit your narrative that Scotland would be some backward hellhole if it weren't for the union.

 

As I wrote in my earlier, post, with only 20% of the population of England yet twice the number of universities and a government aim of putting schools in every town across the country, I don't think our progress would have stalled in 1707 if the union never came about. 

 

A more pertinent question to ask, however, is whether England could have elevated itself without the support of Scotland. As Churchill wrote, "Of all the small nations of this earth, perhaps only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind". I wonder how England would have fared if it wasn't for its union with its more developed neighbour.  

 

14 hours ago, sharksy said:

And Scottish Law can trump English Law.  Just look at the recent issue of proroging Parliament.

 

 

I think that you are getting confused between English law and parliamentary procedure. The proroguing of parliament was not, in itself, a legal instrument. The action in the Scottish courts was to claim that the act of prorogue was illegal. This is not Scots law trumping English law, this was a PM trying to break existing laws and being held to account under Scots law.  

 

But your comment (incorrect as it is) suggests that you think English law should have primacy. Is that your belief?

 

14 hours ago, sharksy said:

There is a lot of heavy industry (eg Aircraft Carriers) that the UK government has paid for to be built in Scotland.

Do you really think this could continue after independence?

 

Paid for by the taxpayers - which includes Scots. Do you think that they should not receive a portion of the work commissioned by the government they fund?

 

As for future contracts, the Westminster government has failed to deliver on its past promises in terms of shipbuilding so I would not bank on nothing from them in the future. 

 

Work begins on the HMS Glasgow – but it’s a far cry from the 13 frigates promised by Better Together

"IT was one of the many broken promises made by the Westminster Government ahead of the independence referendum in September, 2014, but at least work has now started on the three new Royal Navy frigates being built on the Clyde, the first of which is to be called HMS Glasgow.

The No campaign publicised the promise widely — “Govan and Scotstoun will get the order for 13 Type-26 frigates from the Royal Navy”. So far, however, just three have been ordered and the final number will be eight, though where and when they will be built will not be decided until the 2020s."

 

14 hours ago, sharksy said:

But was the oil revenues really squandered?  It mean't lower taxes for all in the UK, also allowing lowering the National Debt.

OK, Shetland & Norway decided to setup a fund, this is surely overrated. 

 

Well, this is a point of personal opinion, I guess, but I would have preferred that the money was spent bettering the lives of the working class rather than paying for tax cuts for the rich. As for a sovereign wealth fund being overrated - well, that is certainly a take i have never come across before. Norway's fund equates to around $200,000 per person which is used to the betterment of all. It's national debt is around 40% of it's GDP whereas the UK's, is 85%. I know which I would prefer. 

 

14 hours ago, sharksy said:

RBS is registered in Edinburgh.  But after independence, it will, along with many other companies, no doubt, relocate to England.

Independence will be an own goal for Scotland.

Why pay higher Corporation Tax rate, when a few miles south of the big cities, there is a kinder tax regime?

Your crystal ball is impressive. 

 

Edited February 9, 2021 by RuamRudy

[youreavinalaff]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

As I wrote in my earlier, post, with only 20% of the population of England yet twice the number of universities and a government aim of putting schools in every town across the country, I don't think our progress would have stalled in 1707 if the union never came about. 

Yesteryear and nostalgia is interesting and fun. 

 

However, I would have thought development was more important when gauging future success.

 

Scotland now has 19 universities. England 130.

 

I would go on to speak about numbers of foreign students and revenue there of, but I feel you are perfectly capable of digging your own holes.

 

[Nout]

On 1/14/2021 at 5:48 PM, Hi from France said:

if the early promises of Brexit had been kept

 

the UK would have the benefits of the EFTA then we would probably not be there

 

 

all this stems from a narrow/nationalist vision of sovereignty

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/14/uk-eu-rivalry-brexit

as soon as the UK refuses the play by the same rules as other single market nations, it's out of the single market.

 

Then the problems begin: even with a theoretical "zero-tariffs, zero-quotas" system, red tape and rules of origin make it very very hard for Scott to trade with the EU. So even scottish fishermen who used to believe brexit promises and vote for the tories discover they have been fooled.

 

 

 

.. and of course there's the problem of England brutally imposing its will on a nation that did not want to leave the European Union in the first place.

 

 

.

'Brutally' imposing it will. LOL

[RuamRudy]

38 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Yesteryear and nostalgia is interesting and fun. 

 

However, I would have thought development was more important when gauging future success.

 

Scotland now has 19 universities. England 130.

 

I would go on to speak about numbers of foreign students and revenue there of, but I feel you are perfectly capable of digging your own holes.

 

As I said, it's an impossible argument, however if you want to focus on the here and how:

 

Population of Scotland - 5.5 million or 1 university for every 290,000 people 

 

Population of England -  56 million, or 1 university for every 430,000 people. 

 

So what's your point, caller? 

[youreavinalaff]

6 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

As I said, it's an impossible argument, however if you want to focus on the here and how:

 

Population of Scotland - 5.5 million or 1 university for every 290,000 people 

 

Population of England -  56 million, or 1 university for every 430,000 people. 

 

So what's your point, caller? 

Seeing as you asked so eloquently.

 

I had already preempted your reply.

 

Prior to posting I also checked the number of seats available, enrollments and graduations. I'll let you do the maths.

Edited February 9, 2021 by youreavinalaff

[RuamRudy]

49 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Seeing as you asked so eloquently.

 

I had already preempted your reply.

 

Prior to posting I also checked the number of seats available, enrollments and graduations. I'll let you do the maths.

 

No, you do it as it seems more important to you than it is to me. 

[StreetCowboy]

25 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

No, you do it as it seems more important to you than it is to me. 

I think it is great that since the Union of the Crowns, the English have caught up with Scotland in numbers of universities.  The Union certainly seems to have benefited them, though I expect the foundations were laid when their James I moves his court to London, bringing England out of the Middle Ages. 

[RuamRudy]

Can't remember when the last poll was conducted in Scotland which should support for the union? No, me neither. 

 

But here is the 21st consecutive poll showing majority support for Scottish independence. 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

An excellent article from a professor of international law and international constitutional studies at the University of Cambridge:

 

How would an independent Scotland fare on the world stage?

"Evidently Scotland would occupy a more pronounced role from the outset. It would arrive on the international scene endowed with a certain amount of soft power, based on its globally admired unique history and culture. As the capital of enlightenment philosophy, the Athens of the North boasts important universities, attracting many overseas students and launching ideas with global pulling power.

 

"After the shock of the dissolution of the union has worn off, independent Scotland... would be likely to enjoy privileged relations with the White House and Congress. Many members pride themselves on their Caledonian ancestry. "

[sharksy]

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Can't remember when the last poll was conducted in Scotland which should support for the union? No, me neither. 

 

But here is the 21st consecutive poll showing majority support for Scottish independence. 

 

 

 

There was a lot of critisism of Brexit, the fact that not everyone voted, therefore less than 50% actually voted for Brexit.

I think you have, in the past mentioned this.

 

As it stands, the same will happen to Scotland.

Maybe there should be law to force people to have a vote.

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, sharksy said:

 

There was a lot of critisism of Brexit, the fact that not everyone voted, therefore less than 50% actually voted for Brexit.

I think you have, in the past mentioned this.

 

As it stands, the same will happen to Scotland.

Maybe there should be law to force people to have a vote.

 

I am in two minds about the general principle. I get the need for popular mandates, but it almost seems undemocratic to force people to participate in democracy. 

 

Personally, I would, of course, wish any independence vote to be as representative of the electorate as possible. In 2014 the turnout for indyref1 was almost 85% whereas the 2019 GE was only 67% and the Brexit vote saw 72% of the electorate take part (both UK wide figures). I feel that when indyref2 comes along, the participation will be as high, if not higher than 2014. 

[sharksy]

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I am in two minds about the general principle. I get the need for popular mandates, but it almost seems undemocratic to force people to participate in democracy. 

 

Personally, I would, of course, wish any independence vote to be as representative of the electorate as possible. In 2014 the turnout for indyref1 was almost 85% whereas the 2019 GE was only 67% and the Brexit vote saw 72% of the electorate take part (both UK wide figures). I feel that when indyref2 comes along, the participation will be as high, if not higher than 2014. 

Quite agree.

 

Maybe a fair assessment would be: Total number of yes votes, minus those who don't vote, minus the No votes.

If the result is still more than 50%, that would be fair.  Let's face it, the none votes aren't particularly bothered - but it would affect them.

[StreetCowboy]

2 minutes ago, sharksy said:

Quite agree.

 

Maybe a fair assessment would be: Total number of yes votes, minus those who don't vote, minus the No votes.

If the result is still more than 50%, that would be fair.  Let's face it, the none votes aren't particularly bothered - but it would affect them.

When Scotland voted for devolution in 1979 the majority were denied by a requirement that 40% of the electorate were required to have voted for devolution.  If a similar criterion had been imposed on Brexit, we would still be members of the EU, rather than having to go back cap in hand in a few years' time as separate nations.

 

On the bright side, Ireland will be unified first, so it is not all bad news, except for Irish Loyalists.

[sharksy]

52 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

When Scotland voted for devolution in 1979 the majority were denied by a requirement that 40% of the electorate were required to have voted for devolution.  If a similar criterion had been imposed on Brexit, we would still be members of the EU, rather than having to go back cap in hand in a few years' time as separate nations.

 

On the bright side, Ireland will be unified first, so it is not all bad news, except for Irish Loyalists.

 

I would have thought 50% and over, of the electorate would be fairer.

Brexit too.

 

Otherwise you have two, large, very opposing sides which takes a long time to heal, if ever.

[NiceGuyEddy]

On 2/11/2021 at 7:08 AM, RuamRudy said:

Can't remember when the last poll was conducted in Scotland which should support for the union? No, me neither. 

 

But here is the 21st consecutive poll showing majority support for Scottish independence. 

 

 

Polls are boring, however, they are narrowing and very very close despite the constant barrage of anti-English propaganda, political point-scoring and disinformation from the cult.

[RuamRudy]

3 hours ago, NiceGuyEddy said:

Polls are boring, however, they are narrowing and very very close despite the constant barrage of anti-English propaganda, political point-scoring and disinformation from the cult.

There's a baggage of anti English propaganda now, is there? And its constant? Good lord, I am sorry to hear that. 

 

I suppose, then, it will be remarkably easy for you to highlight some of it. Show us this constant barrage, please. 

[vogie]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

There's a baggage of anti English propaganda now, is there? And its constant? Good lord, I am sorry to hear that. 

 

I suppose, then, it will be remarkably easy for you to highlight some of it. Show us this constant barrage, please. 

When a certain member refers to his neighbours as "parasitic," that is hardly an endearing word now is it, did you mean paralytic?

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

When a certain member refers to his neighbours as "parasitic," that is hardly an endearing word now is it, did you mean paralytic?

 

I referred to the government of the country next door as parasitic. You know, how they suck the resources of another for their own benefit?

 

I stand by that; the UK as a whole has been like that in a global scale since the start of the empire, and within the UK the same approach has applied since the act of union. If you want to take it personally and suggest that it was meant explicitly for you, that's your perogative but it's a rather pathetic stance to take. 

 

But, just assuming that in that one post I was specifically accusing you, vogie, of plundering Scottish resources for your own benefit, it would hardly amount to a constant barrage, would it?

 

If you want to see the sort of thing that Niceguy was, I presume, referring to, you just need to look back through this thread and see all the nasty, petty attacks on england, by other posters, which have gone unchallenged by most. Oh, sorry, my mistake - it was slurs on Scotland. 

 

But for me, I have gotten used to it over the years, and I know it's only from a small section of your country. That's why I tend not to bleat about it. 

 

But let's see what NiceGuy has to offer in the way of evidence. I am always willing to be educated. 

[vogie]

10 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I referred to the government of the country next door as parasitic. You know, how they suck the resources of another for their own benefit?

 

I stand by that; the UK as a whole has been like that in a global scale since the start of the empire, and within the UK the same approach has applied since the act of union. If you want to take it personally and suggest that it was meant explicitly for you, that's your perogative but it's a rather pathetic stance to take. 

 

But, just assuming that in that one post I was specifically accusing you, vogie, of plundering Scottish resources for your own benefit, it would hardly amount to a constant barrage, would it?

 

If you want to see the sort of thing that Niceguy was, I presume, referring to, you just need to look back through this thread and see all the nasty, petty attacks on england, by other posters, which have gone unchallenged by most. Oh, sorry, my mistake - it was slurs on Scotland. 

 

But for me, I have gotten used to it over the years, and I know it's only from a small section of your country. That's why I tend not to bleat about it. 

 

But let's see what NiceGuy has to offer in the way of evidence. I am always willing to be educated. 

There is no such thing as "Scottish resources" they belong to the UK to which Scotland belongs.

 

And as for taking things personally, it very much like someone calling my family parasites and when questioned about it it, they reply 'I didn't mean you'

[RuamRudy]

5 minutes ago, vogie said:

There is no such thing as "Scottish resources" they belong to the UK to which Scotland belongs.

 

 

The UK is a union of countries. I am surprised that you need to be informed of that. 

 

6 minutes ago, vogie said:

And as for taking things personally, it very much like someone calling my family parasites and when questioned about it it, they reply 'I didn't mean you'

Misrepresentation or lying for worthless internet points? Which are you doing there?

 

If I really wanted to be petty, I could probably pull out a post you saw fit to endorse which said all sorts of nasty things, not about the Scottish government or the independence movement, but about the people of Scotland in their entirety. So one of us has a history of endorsing slurs against the other, and it ain't me, mate.   

[vogie]

14 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The UK is a union of countries. I am surprised that you need to be informed of that. 

 

Misrepresentation or lying for worthless internet points? Which are you doing there?

 

If I really wanted to be petty, I could probably pull out a post you saw fit to endorse which said all sorts of nasty things, not about the Scottish government or the independence movement, but about the people of Scotland in their entirety. So one of us has a history of endorsing slurs against the other, and it ain't me, mate.   

The UK is a union of countries. I am surprised that you need to be informed of that. 

When Scotland decided to join the Union we bacame united and thus we now call it the United Kingdom, because hey voila, we are one, we are an island country. We only use names like Scotland and England etc when we play football and rugby together, it does confuse a lot of Nationalists though. Make no mistake RR, your country is the UK, just the same as the rest of us that reside in the UK.

You are being very economical with the truth there, but prove me wrong and pull out these mythical posts you state I say "the people of Scotland in their entirety." My grandfather was born in the Gorbals and not once can ever remember him painting his face blue whilst carrying a banner saying "England out of Scotland or Tory Scum" 

The SNP is the party of hate, Scotland has become divided, the sooner the devolved parliaments are abolished the better it will be for everyone living in the United Kingdom, but I guess haters will always hate.

 

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

I guess haters will always hate.

 

I fear that you are right there. 

[vogie]

9 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I fear that you are right there. 

I will file that as vogie has said nothing derogatory againgst the Scots, but againgst the SNP my cup will runneth over.

One 'like' taken from your vogies personal file database, that has got to be some desperation you have stooped to, I won't even send the jury out to deliberate that one.????????????????????

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

I will file that as vogie has said nothing derogatory againgst the Scots, but againgst the SNP my cup will runneth over.

One 'like' taken from your vogies personal file database, that has got to be some desperation you have stooped to, I won't even send the jury out to deliberate that one.????????????????????

 

If the post said 'historically bitter SNP supporters' or 'many of us will be glad to see the back of you SNP supporters' then maybe your plead would have some merit, but as I said (or implied), your prejudice is no skin off my back - you sugar coat it however you choose. It is up for others to interpret it as they see fit. 

 

But when you take a clearly impersonal dig of mine against the UK government and try to claim that I was insulting your own family, don't expect to not be called a hypocrite. 

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

If the post said 'historically bitter SNP supporters' or 'many of us will be glad to see the back of you SNP supporters' then maybe your plead would have some merit, but as I said (or implied), your prejudice is no skin off my back - you sugar coat it however you choose. It is up for others to interpret it as they see fit. 

 

But when you take a clearly impersonal dig of mine against the UK government and try to claim that I was insulting your own family, don't expect to not be called a hypocrite. 

You are deliberately obfuscating and twisting just like your leaders do. Nationalists will get their message across by any means at their disposal as proven.

[RuamRudy]

Good to see that the Welsh are increasingly shaking off this absurd notion that they are too small or too poor to be the masters of their own destiny. 10 years ago the SNP had 6 MPs - if they follow the same path that Scotland took, the Welsh have a very exciting, positive future ahead of them as an independent country. 

 

Welsh independence: More people in favour, Plaid say

The level of support for independence in Wales is similar to that in Scotland's a decade ago, Plaid Cymru's leader has claimed.

Adam Price told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show "more and more" people were supporting the idea because of the state of the economy and the level of inequality in Welsh society.

Mr Price said independence would put Wales "on a better path".